Bernie's sold a huge stake and made sure he retained control. Driving the value down and buying it back before building it back up again would be classic Bernie. Where's the tin foil...?
It would seem like that was the reason behind his actions but he is 85!!!! How much longer will he be capable of managing things? Also surely if it could be proved that his actions had devalued F1 so he could buy it and then profit from an increase in value he could be prosecuted? Oh I forgot he allegedly did something similar bought his way out of the fraud conviction!
Troughs and peaks then? This seems like an never ending trough by Bernie. One that isn't going to change any time soon. Nobody in there right mind will want to sponsor this ****e or the teams in it. Broadcasting rights have already been shot to pieces. Can't see Bernies thought process here.
Still think the teams should just up sticks and walk out. Take F1(or whatever they call it) back to the masses with proper tracks at a decent price and back to terrestrial telly. That alone might help bring back some sponsorship.
Genuinely feel that is by far and away the best thing the teams can do in order to get things back on track.
A boycott is what is needed. But how do you organise something on that scale. Although I fear it's beyond fixing with its current management. It's becoming ever more clear that it needs to totally fail so it can be rebuilt.
Gary Hartstein's take on the current state of F1: https://formerf1doc.wordpress.com/2016/03/26/its-not-you-its-me/ Perhaps a little theatrical in his description, but spot on I think.
It's almost like I wrote that article.... It's pretty much word for word what I've been saying for years. A boycott would help, but it would be harder than hell to pull off. As fans we've been shafted for decades, yet like some kind of abusive relationship we just keep coming back in the hope it will get better. Well it isn't getting better, It's deteriorating constantly. Indy?
I think I understand now, Bernie has died and they're using an animatronic Zelda from terrahawks to make public appearances and that twitterbot Microsoft launched to make statements and think up rules. It's the only explanation.
Going away completely from free to air will drive people away I guess. Although it didn't do football much commercial harm in the long term. I don't particularly agree with the GH blog, it's a love letter to the fans, but doesn't move the debate on. In my opinion the problem is that the sport is out of balance and it's not easy to see how to fix it. For this reason we see discussions where we're talking about changing qualifying to find a way to disorder the cars, but also making overtaking easier to help them get back into the right order. That sounds manufactured to me and I can't imagine it would be that interesting to watch. F1 needs to understand what it's trying to be, fastest cars, most technology, best drivers, most entertaining, unpredictable, biggest budgets, for manufacturers, for privateers, for engine constructors, for chassis constructors, etc. It needs to recognise it probably can't do all of this. Then it needs to bring the three sporting elements into some kind of balance, i.e. Strategic, vs team vs driver in a way that allows the sport to be competitive. A good sport should mean that perfect execution of one of these elements should give you a chance to win, it should also be very difficult to achieve perfection. To illustrate what I mean: I've never really watched t20 cricket before, but have had the chance to watch a few games of the WC and it struck me that here is relatively new sport that has found this balance. A brilliant individual can beat a good team, a great team performance can overcome a brilliant individual performance. Each ball matters and can shape the game dramatically and the strategic plan well executed can be just as effective as a brilliant piece of skill. As I say it's hard to see exactly how to do this, but it should be possible with the various elements that make up F1 to come up with the right mix. It needs a clear vision and someone with the ability and authority to implement it. The teams shouldn't have a say, they can vote with their feet (wheels!) if they don't like it. The promoter should buy into and have a stake in the vision (they have to sell it), but should stay out of the execution.
Bernie spouting that CVC have 2 offers that they are considering but he is not interested in extending his number of shares! With the state of things I can't imagine the bids are that high and who would want Bernie to continue to 'run' things? Things may change but I wouldn't bet on it.
I think the sale price is still higher than CVC paid, so they'll take a nice profit. More of a concern is what the next owners would have to do to F1 to turn a profit themselves. More short term thinking and destruction of the sport.
Great post Sportista. Just on the point that football didn't suffer from being put on pay TV (I've seen it mentioned other places too), football is entirely different to F1. There are hundreds of matches each season and only a small percentage were and are shown on TV, so highlights programs such as MOTD were always popular, there's over 15 hours of Premier League football each weekend. It's also a sport that millions of fans can go and see live and engage with each season, and tens of thousands go and watch their team every week. F1 is nowhere near as accessible given the limited number of tickets, the amount of travel involved and the cost of a ticket. TV has been the only way people have had of following the sport. Football's also widely played in the UK so it will always generate interest, it's way bigger than a rights deal. F1 will suffer though, ratings have already plunged since Sky took half the races.